Does opposition to immigration mostly stem from prejudice or from sociotropic concerns about broad economic and cultural implications on the nation as a whole? Previous work on immigration preferences cannot answer this question because the two explanations are observationally equivalent when focusing on the attitudes of natives. I analyze a unique survey experiment that asks both natives and immigrants of various origins to evaluate different profiles of visa applicants to the Netherlands. The experiment also assigns an “ingroup treatment”—applications by individuals of the same ethnocultural background as the respondent. Using this rich data, I show that sociotropic concerns are the major source of immigration preferences, while ethnic biases play a moderate role. Remarkably, the ingroup treatment has limited effects on admission. However, bias against specific immigrant groups is detected in preferences of immigrant respondents and of those who sympathize with the far-right Freedom Party.
AdidaCLLaitinDDValfortM-A (2010) Identifying Barriers to Muslim Integration in France. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America107 (52): 22384–22390.
2.
AllportGW (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
BansakKHainmuellerJHangartnerD (2016) How Economic, Humanitarian, and Religious Concerns Shape European Attitudes toward Asylum Seekers. Science354 (6309): 217–222.
4.
BraakmannNWaqasMWildmanJ (2017) Are Immigrants in Favour of Immigration? Evidence from England and Wales. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy17 (1): 1–16.
5.
BrewerMB (2001) Ingroup Identification and Intergroup Conflict. In: AshmoreRDJussimLWilderD (eds) Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.17–41.
6.
BurnsPGimpelJG (2000) Economic Insecurity, Prejudicial Stereotypes, and Public Opinion on Immigration Policy. Political Science Quarterly115 (2): 201–225.
7.
ConnorPKrogstadJM (2016) Immigrant Share of Population Jumps in Some European Countries. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
8.
CrulMHeeringL (2008) The Position of the Turkish and Moroccan Second Generation in Amsterdam and Rotterdam: The TIES Study in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
9.
DancygierRSaundersEN (2006) A New Electorate? Comparing Preferences and Partisanship between Immigrants and Natives. American Journal of Political Science50 (4): 962–981.
DustmannCPrestonIP (2007) Racial and Economic Factors in Attitudes to Immigration. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy7 (1): 1–41.
12.
FacchiniGMargalitYNakataH (2016) Countering Public Opposition to Immigration: The Impact of Information Campaigns. IZA DP No. 10420. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp10420.pdf (accessed 21 July 2020).
13.
FordR (2011) Acceptable and Unacceptable Immigrants: How Opposition to Immigration in Britain Is Affected by Migrants’ Region of Origin. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies37 (7): 1017–1037.
14.
FordRGarethMHeathA (2012) Fewer but Better? Public Attitudes to Immigration. In: ParkACleryECurticeJ, et al. (eds) British Social Attitudes: The 29th Report. London: NatCen Social Research, pp.26–44.
15.
FranchinoF (2009) Perspectives on European Immigration Policies. European Union Politics10 (3): 403–420.
16.
FunkCLGarcia-MonetPA (1997) The Relationship between Personal and National Concerns in Public Perceptions about the Economy. Political Research Quarterly50 (2): 317–342.
17.
HainmuellerJHiscoxMJ (2010) Attitudes toward Highly Skilled and Low-Skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. American Political Science Review104 (1): 61–84.
18.
HainmuellerJHopkinsDJ (2014) Public Attitudes toward Immigration. Annual Review of Political Science17: 225–249.
19.
HainmuellerJHopkinsDJ (2015) The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants. American Journal of Political Science59 (3): 529–548.
20.
HainmuellerJHangartnerDYamamotoT (2015) Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments against Real-World Behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America112 (8): 2395–2400.
21.
HainmuellerJHiscoxMJMargalitY (2015) Do Concerns about Labor Market Competition Shape Attitudes toward Immigration? New Evidence. Journal of International Economics97 (1): 193–207.
22.
HarellASorokaSIyengarS, et al. (2012) The Impact of Economic and Cultural Cues on Support for Immigration in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique45 (3): 499–530.
HopkinsDJ (2015) The Upside of Accents: Language, Inter-Group Difference, and Attitudes toward Immigration. British Journal of Political Science45 (3): 531–557.
25.
IyengarSJackmanSMessingS, et al. (2013) Do Attitudes about Immigration Predict Willingness to Admit Individual Immigrants? A Cross-National Test of the Person-Positivity Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly77 (3): 641–665.
26.
JustAAndersonCJ (2014) Dual Allegiances? Immigrants’ Attitudes toward Immigration. The Journal of Politics77 (1): 188–201.
27.
KinderDRKamCD (2010) Us against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
28.
KinderDRKiewietDR (1981) Sociotropic Politics: the American Case. British Journal of Political Science11 (2): 129–161.
MargalitYSolodochO (2019) Location Matters: Is the Immigration Debate Over Stocks or Flows?Paper Presented at the European Political Science Association Conference, Belfast, 18–19June.
31.
MasuokaNJunnJ (2013) The Politics of Belonging: Race, Public Opinion, and Immigration. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
32.
MaydaAM (2006) Who Is against Immigration? A Cross-Country Investigation of Individual Attitudes toward Immigrants. The Review of Economics and Statistics88 (3): 510–530.
33.
MeehlPE (1977) The Selfish Voter Paradox and the Thrown-Away Vote Argument. American Political Science Review71 (1): 11–30.
34.
MontgomeryJMNyhanBTorresM (2018) How Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It. American Journal of Political Science62 (3): 760–775.
35.
NewmanBJMalhotraN (2019) Economic Reasoning with a Racial Hue: Is the Immigration Consensus Purely Race Neutral?The Journal of Politics81 (1): 153–166.
36.
OstfeldM (2017) The Backyard Politics of Attitudes toward Immigration. Political Psychology38 (1): 21–37.
37.
ScherpenzeelDMDasJWM (2010) “True” Longitudinal and Probability-Based Internet Panels: Evidence from the Netherlands. In: DasJWMEsterPKaczmirekL (eds) Social and Behavioral Research and the Internet. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, pp.77–103.
38.
ScheveKFSlaughterMJ (2001) Labor Market Competition and Individual Preferences Over Immigration Policy. The Review of Economics and Statistics83 (1): 133–145.
39.
SnidermanPMHagendoornLPriorM (2004) Predisposing Factors and Situational Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities. American Political Science Review98 (1): 35–49.
40.
SolodochO (2020, forthcoming) Regaining Control? The Political Impact of Policy Responses to Refugee Crises. International Organization.
41.
SolodochOSommerU (2020) Explaining the Birthright Citizenship Lottery: Longitudinal and Cross-National Evidence for Key Determinants. Regulation & Governance14: 63–81.
TajfelH (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
ValentinoNASorokaSNIyengarS, et al. (2019) Economic and Cultural Drivers of Immigrant Support Worldwide. British Journal of Political Science49: 1201–1226.
46.
Van BezooijenRGooskensC (2005) How Easy Is It for Speakers of Dutch to Understand Frisian and Afrikaans, and Why?Linguistics in the Netherlands22 (1): 13–24.
47.
Van ImhoEBeetsG (2004) A Demographic History of the Indo-Dutch Population, 1930-2001. Journal of Population Research21 (1): 47–72.
48.
WrightMLevyMCitrinJ (2016) Public Attitudes toward Immigration Policy across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making. Political Behavior38 (1): 229–253.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
